4D Monte Carlo Based Patient Dose Reconstruction Incorporating Surface Motion Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A framework was developed to assess the impact of respiratory motion on the dose delivered during radiotherapy using a previously validated 4D Monte Carlo-based dose reconstruction tool, 4Ddefdosxyznrc.As a surrogate for tumour motion, abdominal surface motion measurements were recorded during patient treatments using the RADPOS system.Motion traces, treatment log files and deformation vectors representing each patient's respiratory motion were used as inputs to the 4D dose reconstructions.Motion measurements were performed for 3 patients undergoing radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer, totalling 12 fractions.No statistically significant interfractional differences in 4D reconstructed dose metrics were found.A maximum difference of 2.0% in the GTV D98% was found between 4D calculations and the treatment planning system.This result is consistent with small abdominal displacements of 5.5 ± 1.4 mm, 5.4 ± 0.4 mm, and 0.40 ± 0.03 mm, respectively, observed for these 3 patients during treatments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".